Sauer's Milford Marathon

March 2016Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona N12th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85014Re: Complaint # [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: [redacted] e-mail: [redacted] I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr***We received the complaint on/about March Mr [redacted] states that Progressive is a “scam” organization and that we are calling his residence “non-stop for days up to times per day.” He also claims that “several times” he has tried to correct the issue but “it’s like they don’t listen.” This is the type of exaggeration in a complaint that makes for interesting reading and maximum shock value but like so many complaints we respond to, this complaint has no merit whatsoever.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging to Elizabeth ***, the consumer we were trying to locateWe have credible evidence that Ms [redacted] is/was associated with the phone number called (ending in 5054) and at the address listed by Mr***However, he states in his complaint to the Revdex.com that that Elizabeth [redacted] “does not exist at my phone number or location.” (Emphasis added)He does not say she never lived there, or that she was never associated with the number, or that he does not know who we are trying to find.To set the record straight, Progressive did not call that phone number “non-stop for days up to times per day.” In truth, we called the phone number three (3) times in three (3) days (one outbound call per day)We are more than happy to produce the call records to the Revdex.com or any regulatory agency who may be reviewing this complaint and responseNone of the calls to that number were answered, and on two of those calls, a message was leftThe message starts by asking the consumer listening to let us know promptly if we are calling a wrong numberOn the same day that the third call was made (March 2016), Mr [redacted] placed an inbound call to Progressive (as we requested)He stated that Elizabeth [redacted] “does not exist at this number.” We have reason to believe based on his answer (and the way he phrased his complaint to the Revdex.com as well) that she once lived at that number, but no longer doesPromptly upon learning that we could not reach Elizabeth [redacted] at that number, the agent who spoke with the consumer removed the number and it was not called againSo his allegation that he has tried to correct the issue, “but it’s like they don’t listen,” clearly does not apply to Progressive’s response to his “wrong number” instruction.Thus, this consumer has only one thing right – Progressive called his number looking for someone that all indicators point to as having once been associated with that phone number and that addressWe did not call “non-stop for days up to calls per day.” We called ONCE per day for daysWe did in fact, listen to him when he told us we could not find Elizabeth at that number and we promptly removed the number so it would not be called again on the accountNor are we a “scan financial service 2provider” as this consumer allegesWe are a legitimate debt collector who did absolutely nothing wrong in the way the underlying account was worked.Again, we are happy to provide supporting documentation for the account activity we have described in this complaint responseIf the Revdex.com or a reviewing regulatory agency reads this, just let us know what corroborating evidence is needed; we are happy to complyPlease let me know if I can be of

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Mr***We received the complaint on/about April Mr [redacted] states that the negative trade line that Progressive posted on behalf of our client, Cox Communication, is “incorrect information.” He does not elaborate about why the information is false, howeverHe wants the tradeline off his credit reportPromptly upon receipt, we located the relevant accountWe see that on/about March 2017,Progressive received a dispute from this consumer regarding the trade lineHe sent the dispute via the credit bureaus (CBR)The dispute stated that the wanted documentation about the account balance and the creditor to whom the debt is owedWe believe that Mr [redacted] may be looking at a partial trade line(the type pushed out by “free” services such as Credit Karma)The full trade line that can be viewed by going to the bureaus directly lists the debt as owing to Cox CommunicationPromptly upon receipt of his CBR dispute, our staff caused the trade line to be updated to “disputed” statusFurthermore, we are today sending out to the consumer a packet of verification of debt (VOD)documentation from CoxThe account is in a temporary VOD hold while those materials are being mailedThe account will remain on hold for several more days to give Mr [redacted] time to receive and review the VOD that is being sentOnce he has those materials, he may contact our staff if he has further questions or wishes to take care of the balance on the accountPlease let me know if I can be of any further assistance

I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr***We received the complaint on/about June Mr [redacted] is disputing two collection notices he received regarding a City of Philadelphia obligation and asked for documentation regarding the details of the alleged obligations.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant accounts Our staff placed the accounts in a verification of debt (“VOD”) hold and requested account detail and documentation from our client to share with Mr*** Those materials were secured and were mailed out to the consumer on June Once he has had a chance to review them, we encourage him to contact our office to discuss the accounts and answer any further questions he may haveThe account will remain in a VOD hold for a few more days to allow that review and follow up to take place.We found no issues on the account review as to how the account had been workedPlease let me know if I can be of further assistance

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr [redacted] We received the documentation on/about June Mr [redacted] states that he wants his employer to be provided with an updated amount/balance due on a debt that we have in our office He requests that this information be provided so that his ongoing administrative wage garnishment (“AWG”) will be promptly terminated once his balance has been paidI apologize that this response is a day or so tardy I waited as long as I did so that I could hopefully provide Mr [redacted] some positive response.Here is what we can determine from the information that is available to Progressive: The obligation at issue here involves defaulted student loan/loans that are being held by our client, the U.SDepartment of Education (“ED”) When voluntary arrangements were not set up, ED initiated AWG with the consumer’s employerIn the course of the garnishment, there was also an offset against the consumer’s federal benefit payment that significantly reduced the balance owed on the account.At about that time, Mr [redacted] started calling our staff so that his employer could be advised of the updated balance; he didn’t want the AWG to continue to take money beyond what was actually owedAt some point, the consumer’s employer information was changed or updated, and according to our requirements on the account, we provided that updated information to EDFor reasons we simply cannot discern, ED’s system has not captured and updated the updated employer informationConsequently, each time Progressive requested that the employer be provided with a new letter advising of the updated balance, the letter from ED went to the former employerAs of yesterday, that was still the caseWe are showing several letters that Progressive requested having been sent by ED to the former employer.Mr [redacted] ’s balance is nearly resolved, and assuming there is no additional amounts added to the balance by ED, we anticipate that in fact, within a very short period of time, he will have satisfied the balance on the accountYesterday our staff obtained a secured fax number from Mr [redacted] ’s current employerWhile only ED can issue an updated balance notice to the consumer’s current employer, Progressive can, on behalf of ED, notify the employer than an AWG is to be terminated or suspended due to circumstances on the account (such as satisfaction of the balance) Our AWG unit has this account flagged so that when the balance goes to zero, Progressive can immediately fax to his new employer a request to suspend/terminate the AWG Once that request is processed by his current employer, there should be no further garnishment deductions2We apologize that Mr [redacted] ’s reasonable request to have his employer notified of an updated balance has been so difficult to accomplish Our staff consistently has been responsive to his requests, but ED’s system issues caused delays that, unfortunately, Progressive was unable to resolve We appreciate Mr [redacted] ’s diligence and patience in following up with Progressive.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely, [redacted] , EsqCorporate Counsel

Re: Complaint# [redacted] [redacted] Our AcctNo [redacted] and [redacted] (Cox Communication) To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding [redacted] We received the complaint on/about October [redacted] is upset about the type of verification of debt (“VOD”) that was sent to him on the above-referenced debtsHe asked whether screenshots can “serve as proof” and questions how the VOD that was sent “serve[s]as proof of what I asked for.” [redacted] initially set up a payment arrangement with one of our agents to pay and/or settle the balances on the accounts in question When a payment authorization letter was sent to him to confirm the arrangements he agreed to, he then started asking for “proof”that the past due amounts were his responsibilityOur client on the accounts, Cox Communications, has provided Progressive with access to its“ICOMS” system which houses the information about the past due amountsThe screen shots that are printed for customers who ask for VOD include the balance owed, the date when services were discontinued, and a breakdown of what “products” or “services” are past dueThe products could be unpaid data (internet) charges, unpaid cable charges,unpaid telephone charges, charges for equipment that wasn’t returned or charges for early termination of a multi-year contractIn addition to the screen shots that show all that information, Progressive also sends to each consumer a “How to Read Your Cox Documentation” page that explains what the information on the various pages meansIn addition to these screen shots that summarize the past due amount(s), Progressive also sent this consumer an itemized statement – a “flow chart” of the last few weeks of activity on the account.The basic VOD was sent to [redacted] on/about September He responded via e-mail that the VOD that was sent was “no proof at all” and that “anyone can print screen a pc.”He went on, “Give me some kind of proof that I in fact opened this account.” He said he needed to be shown proof that the debt belongs to him.At that point, the dispute was escalated to Progressive’s Legal Department for assistanceAnother set of the VOD was prepared; this time it included an itemized statement print out for the two accounts that Progressive was attempting to resolveIn a lengthy e-mail response to the consumer prepared on October (copy attached to this letter),Progressive explained that his name and social (which he verified) was on the account detail that came from Cox at the time they placed the account with ProgressiveIt was based on that information that the collection efforts were directed to him – as the “owner” of the past due accountProgressive further explained that additional VOD was being mailed to him, BUT, if he was alleging with his dispute that he did not sign up for or receive Cox Communication goods/services, he needed to let us know that he was claiming that the account was fraudulently taken out in his nameWe described that if that was the case, we would send him a “fraud letter” explaining how he would need to reach out to the appropriate personnel at Cox Communication to lodge his fraud complaint and thereafter, Cox would start the fraud investigation processThroughout the time that the account was in dispute and/or when verification of debt documentation was being provided, the account was in a “hold” status and no further collection efforts were conducted to try to get the account resolved.On October 2016, the consumer (contrary to Progressive’s instruction about how to communicate with Progressive) sent an e-mail to MsDixon (who had authored the e-mail sent to him on October 2016)He notified MsDixon that he was filing a Revdex.com complaint and that he wanted Progressive to “cease all communication with me til [sic] I am able to speak with Cox.” Upon receipt of that e-mail, Progressive changed the status of the account to cease and desist(“CAD”)CAD status effectively terminates all efforts to try to voluntarily resolve the account; the account is closed and returned to our clientClosing the account generates a request to the credit bureaus to delete the trade line for the debt that was previously reportedThat command is communicated to the bureaus during regularly scheduled updates that are sent to the credit reporting agencies several times per week Removal of the trade line does not, however, eliminate the obligation that this consumer owes to Cox CommunicationAlthough Progressive handled the account appropriately at every step of the process, the consumer was not content to rely on the verification of debt documentation that was provided to himHe declined to pay the debt that was assigned to his name/social security number by CoxNor did he take steps to lodge a fraud complaint with Cox asserting that he did not request or receive goods/services from Cox that were assigned to his name/social security numberWhile Progressive no longer has the account in our inventory, the debt is valid, however, and remains assigned to this consumer/social security number.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding [redacted] We received the complaint on/about June [redacted] states that she was being contacted by Progressive about an account for Cox Communications that was already with another agencyShe states that she resolved the account balance via a settlement with the other agency, but Progressive nevertheless reported the debt to the credit bureausShe wants the account closed and the credit report trade line deletedPromptly upon receipt we found the associated account for this consumer The account was placed with Progressive on/about November Our records show that indeed [redacted] provided Progressive with proof that she had made arrangements with the other agency ( [redacted] ) and that she made the agreed upon payments that resulted in the account being settled in fullTo make a long story short, she is correctCox apparently did have the account with both agencies at the same time and our personnel at multiple points in the account processing flow did not follow established procedures when she notified us about the other agency's settlement arrangementThose oversights on our part caused the account to remain active, and eventually a trade line was reported to the credit bureausWe have notified Cox about the error and have been advised that they have closed and recalled both accounts from the two agenciesThe consumer's account is settledProgressive recently processed a request sent to all three major credit reporting agencies to delete trade line for the account [redacted] should contact my office directly if, after providing a few days for the credit reporting agencies to process the delete request, the trade lines are not being deletedOur sincere apologies to [redacted] for the confusion about her accountPlease let me know if I can be of further assistanceSincerely, Barbara A H [redacted] , EsqCorporate Counsel

I have reviewed the VOD and have also contacted the tenants that were residing in the residence I was told that when they switched from [redacted] to [redacted] and retained services in their name, the tenants never saw the [redacted] equipment again and stated that they think the [redacted] technician may have mistakenly removed the equipmentNevertheless, I sent check in the verified amount to Progressive Financial - sent certified/receipt mail on 7/25/I am deeply disappointed that [redacted] did not ***empt to notify me of the missing equipment before "writing it off" as a bad debt within one monthI have had an year history of good credit with them at several addresses and would certainly have taken responsibility for the missing equipment, had I knownI only found this out when it was reported to the credit bureau by the Progressive Financial years laterI am pleased to know that Progressive is working with [redacted] to ensure that this does not happen to other customersThey wrote off the equipment so quickly and a zero balance has been showing for yearsThank you so very much for your assistance in getting to the bottom of this m***erI am hopeful that Progressive Financial will report to the credit bureaus that the debt has been satisfied as quickly as possible once they process my payment

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Ms***We received the complaint on/about March Ms [redacted] disputes information on her credit report and wants the trade line involving a debt owed to Cox Communication removedShe claims that the “open date” of January 23, is inaccurate since she has had Verizon for the past yearsPromptly upon receipt, we located the relevant accountWe believe Ms [redacted] is misreading the information on her credit report regarding the above-referenced debtThe“Date Opened” information is the date that the account was placed with Progressive for collection effortsThe “FCRA DOFD” is listed as – that is the “date of first delinquency” – when Cox first listed the account as delinquentMs [redacted] disputed the debt via the credit bureaus (CBR), and Progressive received that dispute from the CBR on/about March The form lists the due date for our response as 4-14-– under the FCRA, the data furnisher has days from the date of the dispute to conduct a reasonable investigation and notify the consumer of the results of the investigation.Progressive is still within that window to finish our investigation and send the consumer information about her disputeAccording to the notes on the account, our staff currently is working on pulling verification of debt (VOD) documentation regarding the balance on the accountWe anticipate having those materials mailed out to her within the 30-day window noted aboveIn addition, we have marked the trade line as “disputed” on her credit reportWhile we are investigating the dispute, the account in our office is in a VOD hold – and collection efforts are suspended until we can mail out the VOD and provide her ample time to receive and review those materialsOnce she has those materials, she may contact our staff if she has further questions or wishes to take care of the balance on the accountPlease let me know if I can be of any further assistance

Re: Complaint # [redacted] ***Progressive AcctNo [redacted] /Deptof Education RefNo [redacted] To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr***We received the complaint on/about July Mr [redacted] is stating that he was not permitted sufficient time to dispute his wage garnishment before it went into effect He states that Progressive’s staff has not been responsive to his concerns.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account Mr [redacted] lists his address on his complaint as [redacted] ***Importantly that is the address that was on the file from the inception of Progressive’s collection efforts Multiple collection notice letters were sent to the consumer at that address; none were returned He did not respond to those letters Nor did he respond to multiple calls from our staff to his phone number (ending in ***) that were placed in February, March, and April of this yearWhen Progressive was unable to get this consumer on the phone to set up voluntary repayment arrangements, our client started the process to involuntarily recover the amount due via an administrative wage garnishment (AWG).The Department of Education (“ED”) mailed out a “notice prior” letter to this consumer on/about May advising him of the impending AWG The letter was sent to the same address listed above – the address the consumer listed on his Revdex.com complaint Although he states he did not get that until “week before the process was to begin,” there appears to be no reason why he did not, at that time, promptly contact Progressive to alert us to his need to request a hearingHad he done so, our staff would have assisted him in getting the request timely filedInstead, the first inbound call we have from this consumer is listed on June – more than days after the notice prior letter from ED was mailed to him.On that call he was advised to fax relevant document to Progressive that day He was further told that it was his responsibility to check back with Progressive hours later to see if the documents were complete or if there was anything else that needed to be sent Our records show that it was another week before he sent in the documents (received in our office on 6.29.15) and then he did not call Progressive until July By then, the garnishment order had been issued by ED to his employer2On July 2015, the consumer called in againOn that call he was provided with information from which he could submit a request for a hearing directly to ED and request that the garnishment be stopped based on the fact that he was laid off from his previous job and had been working at his present employer less than a year Our staff assisted in getting that information to the consumer so that an “untimely” request for a hearing could be sent to EDThe staff told the consumer that the hearing process could take 30-days to complete and that if he was successful, the garnishment would be suspended following that hearing outcome.We did not that our staff mishandled the account at any point The consumer failed to respond to letters and phone calls when the account was initially place with ProgressiveWhen the garnishment notice prior letter went out, he did not timely request a hearing and then failed to promptly get documents in when Progressive asked for those to be immediately faxed to our officeThereafter, he neglected to call Progressive back to check on the status of the documents (they were not complete)His failure to timely respond to various requests by Progressive (written, voice mail, conversations on the phone) contributed to the fact that he did not get a timely hearing requested with ED before the garnishment order was sent to his employer.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely, [redacted] , EsqCorporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Ms.***We received the complaint on/about September Ms [redacted] thinks thatProgressive’s attempt to collect on a debt that dates back to is illegal because the statuteof limitations has runShe asked not to be contacted again about the account and wantsassurance that it won’t appear on her credit report.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, we found the associated account for thisconsumerIn looking at the account details, we reviewed the recording of an inbound phonecall from Ms [redacted] that took place on September During that call our agentindicated that the debt dated back to and was recently placed with Progressive from [redacted] The consumer stated that Progressive could not collect on that billbecause of its ageOur agent (correctly) informed the consumer that there is no “statute oflimitations” on Progressive’s efforts to get the consumer to voluntary resolve the debtTheconsumer disagreed.The consumer misunderstands the meaning of “out of statute.” A debt that is “out ofstatute” cannot be collected by means of a lawsuit – the statute runs on the ability of thecreditor to bring a lawsuit against the consumer for repayment of a debtThe statute oflimitations does not restrict Progressive from trying to voluntarily collect that debt from thisArizona resident notwithstanding that the statute has run on that obligation.The consumer mentioned on the phone and in her complaint that she did not wantthe debt reported on her credit reportGenerally, credit reporting can take place for up to 7years from the date of first delinquency for the debtWithout getting into the specifics of theaccount, the debt in question, dating back to a delinquency, would not be reported tothe credit bureaus – even though Progressive does report permissible accounts to the creditreporting agencies for [redacted] for allowable periods of timeThis account fellout – being nearly years old – and would not have been credit reportedFurthermore,Progressive does not report debt to the credit bureaus that is less than $The consumer’saccount balance was less than $30, so for that additional reason, it would not have beencredit reportedAll that said, the debt in question is a valid debt owed to [redacted] .Nevertheless, the consumer indicated that she was refusing to pay that valid debt, and wouldnot update her address with the agent when asked to do soAccordingly, because of herrefusal to pay as well as because of this Revdex.com complaint, the account is in a “cease and desist”statusIt will be closed and returned to ***, and no further efforts will be made byProgressive to collect on the accountThe decision to send the account back to [redacted] does not,however, eliminate the obligationIf the consumer wishes to resolve this long overdueobligation, we encourage her to contact [redacted] directly to do so.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance

See attached letter and enclosure. Complaint filed in error against our company.

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Ms***We received the complaint on/about May Ms [redacted] is upset because she has not been able to get Progressive to return her phone callsPromptly upon receipt we located the relevant accountUnfortunately, the following verbiage is what we are permitted to share with this consumer: Due to a pending legal matter involving the servicing of Department of Education accounts that are currently assigned to our office, the Department of Education has restricted us from servicing the account about which you wrotePlease accept our apologiesYou may contact the Department of Education with further questions at [redacted] .Again, we are sorry for the inconvenience caused by this current situationWe hope that the personnel at the Department of Education can assist herIf there is anything else you need from us, do not hesitate to reach out to me

If this is the case and *** Communications really did state what was written in the response then I would like a letter from *** Communications relaying the same message to me Because when I call *** Communications and C** they're giving me a different story

I have not received my refund in the mail as of August 15,Please return my funds in the mail immediately before I file a small claims action against your business

To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: ###-###-####Writer’s Direct Fax Line: ###-###-#### e-mail: ***@progressivefinancial.com I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr*** We received the complaint on/about June
Mr*** states that Progressive refuses to send him proof the debt and of property ownership He also alleges the agents have been “rude and disrespectful.” He maintains “they are scammers.”Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging to this consumerOn the first call when we reached this consumer (May 2015), our agent tried to have the consumer update the address so that we could send verification of debt (VOD) that had been requested in the callMr*** refused and hung up on the agent When Mr*** called in a few days later (June 2015), he stated that he was not going to pay the debt and believed that it could not be collected because the violations had occurred nearly years ago He initially said he would take care of the debt, but that he would not submit payment to Progressive Later in the call he refused to pay thedebt altogether, stating then that he had already paid it.Now that we have a good address for Mr*** (pulled from the Revdex.com complaint documentation), we are mailing to him under separate cover, VOD documentation and other information provided to us from the creditor, the State of Utah Mr*** can contact Progressive once he has received the documentation to make arrangements to resolve the account.We regret that this consumer’s experience with our staff was not what we strive for The collection manager for that unit has been advised of the complaint and asked to review the call details with her staff membersPlease let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,/s/*** ** ***, EsqCorporate Counsel

August Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona N12th
Street Phoenix, AZ Re: Complaint # *** *** *** *** *** *** *** To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: *** Writer’s Direct Fax Line: *** e-mail: *** I have been asked to respond to the follow up comments regarding above-referenced complaint filed by MrWheelerWe received the follow up notice after hours yesterdayMrWheeler is complaining that he has not yet received his refund As we said in our initial response: Once the funds have been remitted to them, Cox prefers to issue any necessary refunds directly to the affected consumerAccording to information from Cox that is visible to us, it appears that Cox is preparing to process the refund for this consumer and they hope to mail out the check to him on/about August (Emphasis added) Based on data we have access to, *** notes that it may take 7-business days after the mailing date for delivery of the refund checkIf the check was indeed mailed on the 9th, he should have the funds in hand late this week or early next weekIf he wants to follow up with *** directly, he should call *** to speak with a customer service representativeHe should use his *** account ID number: *** for reference if he calls *** for more information Please let me know if I can be of further assistance Sincerely, /s/ Barbara AH***, EsqCorporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding *** ***We received the complaint on/about June *** *** states that she was being contacted by Progressive about an account for Cox Communications that was already with another
agencyShe states that she resolved the account balance via a settlement with the other agency, but Progressive nevertheless reported the debt to the credit bureausShe wants the account closed and the credit report trade line deletedPromptly upon receipt we found the associated account for this consumer The account was placed with Progressive on/about November Our records show that indeed *** *** provided Progressive with proof that she had made arrangements with the other agency (***) and that she made the agreed upon payments that resulted in the account being settled in fullTo make a long story short, she is correctCox apparently did have the account with both agencies at the same time and our personnel at multiple points in the account processing flow did not follow established procedures when she notified us about the other agency's settlement arrangementThose oversights on our part caused the account to remain active, and eventually a trade line was reported to the credit bureausWe have notified Cox about the error and have been advised that they have closed and recalled both accounts from the two agenciesThe consumer's account is settledProgressive recently processed a request sent to all three major credit reporting agencies to delete trade line for the account*** *** should contact my office directly if, after providing a few days for the credit reporting agencies to process the delete request, the trade lines are not being deletedOur sincere apologies to *** *** for the confusion about her accountPlease let me know if I can be of further assistanceSincerely, Barbara A H***, EsqCorporate Counsel

See attached letter and enclosure. Complaint filed in error against our company

I have reviewed the VOD and have also contacted the tenants that were residing in the residence
I was told that when they switched from *** *** to *** and retained services in their name, the tenants never saw the *** equipment again and stated that they think the *** technician may
have mistakenly removed the equipmentNevertheless, I sent check in the verified amount to Progressive Financial - sent certified/receipt mail on 7/25/I am deeply disappointed that *** *** did not ***empt to notify me of the missing equipment before "writing it off" as a bad debt within one monthI have had an year history of good credit with them at several addresses and would certainly have taken responsibility for the missing equipment, had I knownI only found this out when it was reported to the credit bureau by the Progressive Financial years laterI am pleased to know that Progressive is working with *** to ensure that this does not happen to other customersThey wrote off the equipment so quickly and a zero balance has been showing for yearsThank you so very much for your assistance in getting to the bottom of this m***erI am hopeful that Progressive Financial will report to the credit bureaus that the debt has been satisfied as quickly as possible once they process my payment

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Mr***We received the complaint on/about April Mr*** states that the negative trade line that Progressive posted on behalf of our client, Cox Communication, is “incorrect information.” He
does not elaborate about why the information is false, howeverHe wants the tradeline off his credit reportPromptly upon receipt, we located the relevant accountWe see that on/about March 2017,Progressive received a dispute from this consumer regarding the trade lineHe sent the dispute via the credit bureaus (CBR)The dispute stated that the wanted documentation about the account balance and the creditor to whom the debt is owedWe believe that Mr*** may be looking at a partial trade line(the type pushed out by “free” services such as Credit Karma)The full trade line that can be viewed by going to the bureaus directly lists the debt as owing to Cox CommunicationPromptly upon receipt of his CBR dispute, our staff caused the trade line to be updated to “disputed” statusFurthermore, we are today sending out to the consumer a packet of verification of debt (VOD)documentation from CoxThe account is in a temporary VOD hold while those materials are being mailedThe account will remain on hold for several more days to give Mr*** time to receive and review the VOD that is being sentOnce he has those materials, he may contact our staff if he has further questions or wishes to take care of the balance on the accountPlease let me know if I can be of any further assistance